Finance Committee on April 13th, 2010

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes. You're here representing them. How do you know what their feelings are about that?

[Patty Ducharme]

Well, members are very concerned about their pension in old age. Our members do collect CPP, but again, it's not a stacked plan; it's an integrated plan. From an organizational perspective, we look at the broader society, at all of Canada, as well as our members. We recognize that many Canadians don't have access to pension plans, and quite frankly, we feel we need to ensure, as a society, that all Canadians do.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Even in your plan--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

In the plan you're promoting, would those who do not work benefit?

[Patty Ducharme]

Yes, they would.

I should probably have shared with the committee that we have been talking to our members about improving public pensions--their pensions and the security of their pensions, the Canada Pension Plan--and incorporating the pillars that the labour movement has been advancing on public pensions. Over 70,000 of our members have signed that petition. So we have been consulting with them. We've been talking about pensions with our members, about improving all pensions, and about access to pensions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So you think they're well aware of what the personal cost might be to them and they're satisfied with that at this point.

[Patty Ducharme]

I believe they do understand the cost to them.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

I want to thank all of you for coming today, and for your presentations and responses to our questions. If there is anything further you'd like to submit to the committee--and I believe, Ms. Johannink, you have something for the clerk--please feel free to do so. We will ensure all members get that.

Colleagues, we're going to suspend for about a minute and then we'll deal with Monsieur Paillé's motion. We'll allow the witnesses to leave, if they so choose, and then we'll go to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I'll ask you to find your seats.

You should all have a copy of la motion de Monsieur Paillé in front of you.

I'll ask Monsieur Paillé to introduce his motion and to argue whether the committee should adopt it.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my motion is completely open, meaning that I would like Committee members to take whatever time is needed to review it. I am very conscious of what we have on our agenda between now and the end of the session, but the future lasts a long time.

The motion reads as follows:

That the Committee undertake a study on the introduction of a tax on international currency transactions (similar to a Tobin tax) to control speculative short-term movements of capital, and that this study include: • a detailed statement on how a tax on international currency transactions would work; • an analysis of the approaches taken by various governments to promote world-wide adoption of such a tax; • a list of measures to be implemented in order to introduce such a tax in conjunction with the international community, including a realistic timeframe for Canada; • a consideration of possible beneficiaries of the revenue collected and an analysis of how this revenue could be allocated. That the Committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.

I deliberately included the words “similar to a Tobin tax” in brackets because there has been discussion of many different types of taxes around the world. So, there could be several different ones. They are aimed at controlling speculative short-term movements of capital. In this study, we are only talking about capital, capital transactions—speculative, short-term movements of capital. I want to be very precise in terms of what is involved.

I have also included: “A detailed statement on how a tax on international currency transactions would work”. A number of different people can probably enlighten us on that.

After that, it says: “An analysis of the approaches taken by various governments to promote world-wide adoption of such a tax”. I am thinking in particular of several European countries.

The rest of the motion says: “A list of measures to be implemented in order to introduce such a tax in conjunction with the international community, including a realistic timeframe for Canada”. I think it is important to be realistic: no country can act alone in this area. And, it has to be effective. I am a practical kind of person. Creating a tax that won't work is a waste of time.

Finally, it says: “A consideration of possible beneficiaries of the revenue collected and an analysis of how this revenue could be allocated”. In that regard, many people have suggested creating funds that would be dedicated to poverty, the environment or protection from further bank failures. So, there are a number of potential uses for the money.

And, of course, I am proposing that the Committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.

I hope colleagues will unanimously support this motion, which is intended to be very open and helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, monsieur Paillé.

We have Mr. Menzies and then Mr. McCallum.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect, Monsieur Paillé, I'm not sure what planet you've been living on through this recession, but there's not a dollar of Canadian taxpayers' money that's gone into any bank, so why would we punish them? The fundamental question in my mind is, do you not realize there's only one taxpayer in this country, and that would be you and me, who would pay higher bank fees, because it's quite easy to pass that on? We know that this tax would not end up just with the bank. Next time you or I go in for a loan, or the services that are charged on our transactions, we'd see them increase. So I'm not sure why we would even consider this.

We've said the Government of Canada is not supporting this, and I think we have strong support. I'm quite confident we have strong support across the country, and not just from the banking sector but from those people who understand finances, who are very proud of.... Accolades to the Liberals. The Liberals made sure we kept regulations, good regulations, in place that kept our banks strong, made them strong. Now, to penalize them for greed in other countries, to be very blunt, is not fair to our banks. Our banks are to a point where they've moved up the ladder in international stature. We have some of the strongest banks in the world that are now able to invest outside the country, and this sort of thing is pretty short-sighted.

We had no failures. We required no bailouts in this country. Yet you're suggesting that we should penalize them for their good stature and their hard work. We co-chaired the G-20 to argue against this sort of thing, and here, under your suggestion, we're going to be studying it in a committee. We need to be reducing taxes, and that's why we've said that. This would be the last thing we'd want to do, increase taxes.

Then again, as for your final comment, consideration of possible beneficiaries, who gets to choose where this money goes? The government already takes too much of our money in taxes; we don't need the government taking more. It will come out of my pocket and yours. It's inevitable if this ever happened.

We will be voting against this, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

Mr. McCallum, and then Monsieur Paillé.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'll start with the same words as Mr. Menzies, “With all due respect”, which is usually a bad beginning.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But with all due respect to Ted Menzies--and I, having worked for a bank, don't want to punish banks--I don't think this has anything to do with punishing banks.

I agree, and I accept your compliment, that we did manage the banks well. The Liberals were smart not to allow the mergers, in hindsight, even though I was on the other side at the time.

This has nothing to do with punishing banks. This has to do with other things. I'm not necessarily in favour of it, but I think....

For example, Gordon Brown came up, just yesterday, with a proposal resembling this. I think other countries have talked about this. It's not to punish banks but to curb speculation, to raise funding for development, and to help hit the millennium targets. Those are objectives.

I'm not saying--

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Another tax.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

--I'm in favour of this, so please don't quote me to that effect, but it's difficult to argue against studying something when a number of major countries, such as the U.K., are proposing it. I'm not opposed to studying it, but I am concerned that we don't have the time.

I've seen the agenda prepared by my colleague Massimo and the chair of the committee and others, and it seems to show that with the retirement income study and other things currently committed to, there really isn't any time between now and June. And it is a major topic.

I guess as a Liberal, I'm in an intermediate position.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

On the one hand, unlike the Conservatives, I'm not averse to studying what I think is a potentially important area. But in practical terms, I think this is a major issue. I don't think we can study it in an hour or two.

I am simply suggesting to the Bloc Québécois that it wait or perhaps bring this idea forward again in a few months. I don't think we have enough time between now and the beginning of June or early summer to carry out such a study.

So my objection is more a practical one than a philosophical one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

We have Mr. Paillé, and Mr. Pacetti.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I agree with Mr. McCallum.

Also, I have no objection to Gordon Brown taking his inspiration from us. With all due respect for the House of Commons, I did not submit the wording of this motion to Gordon Brown before bringing it forward here.

In fact, this has nothing to do with the chartered banks. I don't know what kind of transactions Mr. Menzies conducts at his bank, but I, for one, am not involved in speculative, short-term capital transactions. So, I cannot really relate to the situation described by Ted Menzies. Perhaps he is involved in speculative short-term movements of capital. But I am not the one managing his speculative funds.

It is the very large institutions that are affected by this—the speculators, the hedge funds. They are the ones this is aimed at. That's why I think it's very important that we do such a study.

At the same time, I am very aware of time constraints. Can we put this study on the table and hope that we will have time to do it? If it's necessary to present it again in September, I have to admit I am not sure what the procedure would be.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

If the committee can adopt the motion today and the committee can study it, if we don't have time in June it would still be on the agenda for September.